Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

That makes me wonder where the "virtual child abuse" line is drawn. There are lots of non-porn instances in pop culture. Can South Park still kill Kenny? Can Charlie Brown still get whacked with a baseball and go flying off his pitcher's mound? Can Popeye still chase Swee'pea around a construction site? Can God still tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac in the Christian Bible? And don't get me started on the mythological dysfunctional families in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, and other ancient polytheistic pantheons that most kids learn about in school.

This points out the blurring of the line between fantasy and imagination, and reality and causality. You can stop such artwork from being drawn and distributed (maybe), but you can't legislate what goes on in the mind of the creator of such work (yet).

Look at the CGI work that is done in movies. As computer-generated characters look and sound more like real actors, does what we can do to them change? No more violence, bestiality, child abuse depictions in movies? Take it a step further -- assume a CG character could be made alive via AI. Does this character now have the protection of the law? Can a CGAI character be made to perform in a gratuitously sexual manner?

Technology advances and as it does, it makes the moral distinctions we carry even more ambiguous than they were before. The question is, how do we handle this? At what point do we say enough?

Joe Camel really has nothing at all to do with this. The violent video games and porn cartoons are directed at adults, and meant to be restricted from viewing or use by children. If you show a child hentai, you're guilty of child abuse.

The Joe Camel cigarette ads, on the other hand, were directed toward the general public and viewable everywhere, including places children would see them.

Many of the same people who see no harm in pornography or even virtual child porn are the same people trying to get Joe Camel (cartoon character) away from the kids because it lead kids to smoking.
I find such a view quite laughable because they use the exact opposite argument for each. "Its just a cartoon, nobody follows up with what a cartoon does" and "Its a cartoon, kids like cartoons and they'll start smoking because of Joe".

The difference is that if you don't want to see porno cartoons, no one is making you (except perhaps spammers and goatse-style "pranksters"). But if Camel is using Joe's iamge all over the place, I can't avoid it. More to the point, children can't avoid it.

That line isn't nearly blurred enough yet. How do you accurately determine the age of an individual who doesn't exist except as a virtual construct or a drawing? What if the character's purportedly sixteen but looks like she's fifteen? What if she's thirteen but looks like she's seventeen? What if it's a 30-year-old woman's mind transplanted into a twelve-year-old cloned body? What if it's a shape shifter? What if it's an adult character drawn in chibi style? What if she's drawn from the back and her age is completely unclear? What if it's so dark in the drawing you can't tell what's going on? What if there are just haphazard lines on the page and you can't tell if it's even a person?

What happens when you realise that all you are actually looking at is marks on a piece of paper or patterns of light on a screen, and nobody was actually hurt to create them?

There are an awful lot of "things" that a free society allows simply because some people enjoy them.

That's the nature of free society.

I'm glad you don't want to live in a free society.

Take your desire elsewhere, because I want to live in a free society.

A victim has to file a complaint. Your grasp of "victim" is deluded so much by your moral indignation at the topic being discussed that you simple shrug and decide to throw methodology and logic out the window in favor of your personal moral interpretation becoming codified in law.

I see only moderate social benefit to religion, for example, where I see a great deal of damage and strife caused by religions which procliam a "one, true" anything that is worth fighting for (islam, christianity, flying spaghetti monsterism)

That said, do I have a right, as a politician (if i were one), to ban religion outright because I believe it can be used in nefarious ways and does, in fact, hurt many people?

Legislate your morality elsewhere. I want to have 3 wives if i damn well please. And i want the government not to recognize marraige as a binding legal contract so they can't each steal half of my assets..... or so my sleazy neighbor can get his part-time-hooker benefits based on a Las Vegas priest's proclimation "I now pronounce you..."

I think the institution of marraige being codified into a legal contract system with a licence to practice..... that's a travisty of justice and immoral in my opinion.

We do not legislate morality. Legislating morality is not how our society was built and not how free thinking people would want to excercise their will. That is dictatorship or theocracy... or worse.

Society should do the minimum necessary to ensure basic freedoms. The more laws, the more corrupted they become.

The lack of it isn't going to cause global warming, mass killings, or cute furry kittens to die.

The same could be said about any sort of "art". No, I don't think artificial kiddy porn has particular artistic significance, but I feel pretty much the same way about death metal. At least I'm smart enough to realize that my taste shouldn't decide what other people can see.

Any sort of creative work can (and will, quite frankly) be considered obscene by at least one group of people. The valid argument against kiddy porn, of course, is that you have to exploit real kids to make it. If you can remove the actual kids from the equation, I can't see how you can outlaw it and still turn a blind eye to, say, Grand Theft Auto -- which also simulates the most criminal acts in our society and really doesn't have much artistic value -- unless there is some kind of concrete evidence that looking at the simulated/fake stuff causes people to go after the real thing (and AFAIK there isn't, though I'm certainly no expert).

This is the shit side of the argument, of course, because you're instantly labeled a pedophile, or at the very least against the kids. That's certainly not the case. I just think anytime you ask the government to decide what's "obscene" you're asking for trouble. Let's focus on catching actual child molesters and avoid that mess altogether.

Posts like this really make me sad. While I do believe in a free society, and as such you are entitled to your opinion, it troubles me greatly to see such a failure of logic.

Who cares if there is evidence or not?

Our legal system cares; it is the basis of our free society that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To me, this is analogous to saying "the constitution is just a piece of paper", and breakdowns in reasoning such as these are what has led to the Patriot Act.

We don't need years of studies to determine if artificial kiddie porn is detrimental. The lack of it isn't going to cause global warming, mass killings, or cute furry kittens to die.

Fair enough; why don't we ban rap music, action movies, and violent video games while we're at it? According to your reasoning, since they have some small, unprovable possibility of inciting violence in a miniscule amount of people, and since it won't cause global warming or dead kitties, it's alright. We should also ban speech against the government as it might incite riots. See how easy this goes?

the person looking for this material is a victim

Or a potential victimizer. One thing that is always true is that people always want what they can't have. Actual pedophiles probably don't care about this one way or the other; they're going to be pedophiles anyway, and they need medical help. Banning this sort of synthesized pedophilic porn won't do a lick of good for them. For others, I would rather that people out to "satisfy their curiosity" would be able to use this instead of actual child pornography. I personally find it detestable, and would rather it didn't exist, but part of having a free society is the tolerance of others and their rights. I'd rather the KKK didn't exist as well, but as long as they operate within legal limits, they are entitled to their beliefs as well.

That's the really hard part about a discussion of a truly free society; it means you have to be tolerant of others thoughts and opinions, even when they drastically conflict with your own. I don't know about other countries, but I believe America has a long ways to go if it wants to become an actual free society.

Or we can succumb to fear and hatred rather than reasoning and tolerance; it's certainly a lot easier, isn't it?

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".

I don't believe this. I think you've got cause and effect reversed. There's plenty of empirical evidence that suggests that letting people look at porn diffuses their 'lustful mentality' so that they are not as likely to commit an act of physical abuse. That some people's appetites cannot be satisfied by the porn does not equate to the porn causing the appetite itself.

Let's suppose that you're chosen for a jury in a kiddie porn case. In order to render a verdict against the accused, you'll have to look at the porn. Will this make you go out and rape kids? No, it won't. That's because porn doesn't make normal people commit physical acts against others.

But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Making pictures that 'encurage' activities is the expression of an idea, which isn't the same thing as the activities themselves. If someone abuses a child, they have committed an act against an actual person, which is justly punished. If all they're doing is looking at pictures and thinking about it, no one has been harmed, so there is no justification for sending Men With Badges And Guns to stop it.

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed. It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal". It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.

How is this different from trying to ban violent video games?

Either you know the difference between fantasy and reality, in which case CGI child porn should not be banned... or you don't, and violent video games should be banned also, by the same reasoning you use above.

Be very careful with your thinking, lest it be applied in ways you won't like. Decisions are not made in isolation, and consistency of thought is important.

It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal".

Does it really? Do you have some evidence for that? Or is that just random extrapolation "because it makes sense?" From what I've seen and read, paedophilia is triggered in the vast majority of cases by the abuser having been abused himself. They're merely perpetuating their own experiences. Child porn never caused someone to become a child molester. Besides, are you really arguing that paedophilia has increased since people had more access to child porn?
The potential benefit of a law has to always be weighted against its potential drawbacks. In this case, benefits are imaginary, while the drawbacks will happen immediately. Or are you planning on relying on all artists labeling their art with "child porn here", so that law-enforcement doesn't have to rely on completely arbitrary yardsticks?

Then let's ban depictions that glorify rape. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify murder. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify fighting. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify violence. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify nonconformity. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify revolution. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify rebellion. They might be encouraging it.

Then let's ban depictions that glorify (enter anything you are against here). They might be encouraging it.

Meanwhile, as people are off looking for pedophiles under every bed, trying to find someone, anyone, else that can be blamed for the ills of their society, their children are keeping busy watching television. They watch commercials for Bratz girls with jeans halfway down their buttocks. They see that the penultimate expression of being a woman is to have jiggly breasts and to have guys slathering like brainless drug-addled fools after them. They see that their parents are liars and hypocrites who treat relationships and marriage like a game to grow bored with and other people's hearts like things to be toyed with. They learn that sex and lust are all that their adults seem to care about.

At least there won't be any nasty pictures of fictional children having fictional sex. That at least is a consolation when Mrs. Clarkson calls up about her daughter Cindy being pregnant and naming your son as the father. And when your daughter is found taking off her clothes in front of that webcam you bought her, for some guy named Chuck in South Dakota, you can comfort yourself knowing that you were dead set against cartoon child porn.

Yup. You can sleep a lot better knowing that you had nothing to do with furthering the problems...

We're talking about child porn that tries to play games with legal loopholes about whether a child is actually harmed.

Wait, so whether a girl actually was "dragged off by a paedophile to be raped in darkness and terror" or not is just nitpicking at semantics? I think you lack some perspective on what the crime was - doing it or documenting it.

It encourages the direct physical abuse of real children by conditioning the paedophile to consider their lustful and abusive mentality "acceptable" or "normal". It's the same problem that is caused by allowing pre-teen and teen models to be dressed up as if they were adults by clothing advertisers.

So the fashion industry is pedos too? Also, all girls that dress slutty deserve to be raped, they shouldn't be allowed to dress up like that. The hyperbole is getting a little thick.

Comparing South Park's creative and repetitive killing of the self-repairing Kenny to someone trying to portray a realistic scene of rape and torture is disingenuous at best. No one would ever confuse Kenny with being real, but when you consider the stellar work done by SquareSoft, Pixar, or the team behind Ghost in the Shell 2, it's pretty clear that we can do the synthetic actors that Lucas fantasized about years ago.

Get back to us when Pixar and ILM start doing kiddie porn vids. The cartoons you could make up today are almost as far from reality as you.

When's the last time a child got dragged off by a paedophile to be raped in darkness and terror?

...because of fake kiddie porn? Good question, you tell me. But since you think that pretty much everything else encourages pedos, may I first suggest you introduce the "No mimicing MTV vids by anyone under 18" law. I imagine girls trying to shake their ass like the latest pop idol is more dangerous than anything you've come up with so far.

I don't mean this as a blanked defense of the proposed law by any means. I do, however, think it's a fallacy to compare reading/viewing sexual child abuse to reading/viewing a murder, theft, or other crime. In the case of other crimes, the depiction is entirely separate from the depicted. Reading about a bank robber does not make you a thief.Pornography is a little different, however, in that it exists as the interaction between the subject and the material. The whole point of pornography is to not just

In the case of other crimes, the depiction is entirely separate from the depicted. Reading about a bank robber does not make you a thief.

Pornography is a little different, however, in that it exists as the interaction between the subject and the material. The whole point of pornography is to not just be a depiction of some sexually-arousing act, but to actually arouse.

A) Horror films invoke fear, and many depictions of murder are designed to give the viewer a viceral charge, espcecially of revenge. Clearly fictional works of violence work very hard to arouse the emotions of the viewer.

B) So what if someone gets aroused by a cartoon depiction of kiddie porn? "No child was harmed in the creation of this film." I abosolutly have no tolerance or empathy with child pornographers. I loathe them as the lowest form of existance. But that's because they hurt kids. If no kids are harmed, I don't really care how you get your jollies.

Agreed. But for some reason these people aren't willing to admit that watching horror movies doesn't make you a mass murderer and playing GTA does not cause you to join the mob, therefore watching fake kiddie porn is unlikely to turn you into a rapist. Even those that are pretty hardcore against violence in the media very rarely say it will cause adults to do horrible things.But even in pornography, based on my anecdotal evidence, the incidence of real life participation in threesomes among my porn-watchi

Oh come on. The point of a horror novel is to scare you. The point of a murder drama is to empathize with the victim. The point of trash-mafia books it to make you feel like you are in the gangster culture-- to feel what it's like to be a thug.A well written book draws you into its story and compels you to finish it. I don't read books so I can observe disparately what is going on in the story.

I for one do not want the government to start down the slippery slope of deciding which of my thoughts should be il

The question is always, "By allowing this stuff to exist are we providing an outlet for an antisocial impulse, or are we feeding an antisocial desire?"

It is rarely so clearcut. When the cops bust a pedophile, and he has a huge collection of child porn, they blame the porn for the pedophilia, but it's a chicken and egg problem.

It's my feeling that people who are prone to committing these types of crimes will do it regardless of the existence of these videos, so the creation of these videos should be allowed in the hopes that they'll fill some of the kiddie porn niche that is currently filled by actual kiddie porn.

You can't fight supply and demand. The regular sick exploitive stuff is already illegal, and yet still being made. Until you can find some way to make people not want this stuff, the existence of an animated substitute that doesn't involve a financial incentive for live action child porn doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Just for slashdot's education, based on my non-lawyer reading this has been illegal in the US for some time:(a) In General.-- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and(B) is obscene; or(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

...

(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down such provisions as unconstitutional; see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here's an article [cnn.com] about the decision). I'm fairly sure the provisions you highlighted would fall under this decision and thus could not be enforced.

My reading of the CNN article is that it was struck down because it failed to account for the SLAPS test (standard since Miller v. California.) It seems that the law in the Cornell source I linked has that base covered. I don't know if there are some finer details that escaped me and so maybe you're right and it is unenforceable, but it seems to me that this section has been re-written since the 2002 decision.

I'd be interested if anyone has any more details or a better understanding than I do.

Well, good for the UK. Pornography wastes huge globs of time and ruins many marriages.

How does it waste time? Okay, if someone is excessive about it, I can understand that. But I still think you're overgeneralizing.
As with marriages, that's up to interpretation. I for one would require a wife to look at some form of porn daily. heh

It has no advantages to society whatsoever.

I totally disagree. Here's some advantages I can pull out of my ass...

Provides an escape for people with unusual fetishes that can not participate in them in reality

Provides a nice 'release' for those of us without a female. Much easier to choke the chicken with a little mental 'lube'.

It's good entertainment

Most of this can be excused as opinion, but, I do think it has some value to society(including myself).

Sounds like a long overdue idea at the forefront but where does the line get drawn? Do they stop at the internet "fantasy" sites that have started popping up or will they suddenly include Anime? What about some Mod for The Sims that some kid cooks up that makes all the characters naked? Would hate to think some poor bastard out there gets 10 years in prison for mixing together the perfect nudist colony on his sims block. Any chance they will just limit this to the internet pr0n sites that have cropped u

I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.

I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.

As soon as start restricting anything people do *without hurting other people* on a moral basis, you're already slipping on the slope. I understand banning real child porn because children are hurt making it, and I can understand banning photoshopping greenbacks because the fiduciary system, and society in general is hurt, but whatever people do that hurts no-one should be nobody's business to regulate or ban, including peddling or collecting Nazi-ware, which is banned in Europe for some stupid reason I might add.

Any state trying to prevent you from making or watching Hentai smells of police state. Plain and simple. And given the UK's recent track record in this domain, I can't say I'm surprised.

It's hard to say, "Yea, people should be able to create animated child porn and collect Nazi memorabilia" because most people feel that that crosses an ethical line. No "decent" person should want that stuff, so who are we hurting when we ban it? Bunch of sickos? Who cares?

But that's a bad precident to set, where the majority arbitrarily decides what is and is not acceptable for society. As long as no one is hurt/exploited/etc, society should be able to tolerate oddball fringes.

The Nazi stuff is a good example. Europe is working hard to remove any hint that Nazism ever existed, but is that good for society? I've got a copy of the Krampf on my bookshelf at home...It's an excellent reminder of how some pointed hate rhetoric tailored for the masses can screw up the whole goddamn world. It's especially nice because there is a lot of that rhetoric still in play in the world, and it's good to be able to put it in it's proper category.

I can understand banning photoshopping greenbacks because the fiduciary system, and society in general is hurt

I can't. In fact, that sounds remarkably like the other side of this issue! It's not the photoshopping that's harmful; what's harmful is the act of trying to pass the result off as real money. Therefore, it's that act that should be (and is) illegal, not the photoshopping.

In the same way, it's the real child porn that's harmful, not the animated kind, so only the former should be illegal.

I can't speak for mrchaotica, but I would say yes. If I want to make counterfeit money in my basement, it's really not the business of anyone else. Until I actually do, or attempt to do, something illegal with it, why should I be punished? As a hypothetical example, what if I had some sort of bizarre fetish involving paper bills? I should be punished for using a reasonable substitute rather than damaging real currency? A silly example, sure, but I hope it illustrates the larger problem. We simply cann

I disagree. I thought that the reason those photo's are forbidden was becauce you'd need to abuse children to make such photo's. If you just draw something on your computer, you're not harming anyone. Sure it's sick, but is that a crime?

I hate to tell people what they can and can't create on their computer, but if there were a situation that warranted it this might be it. I guess the real question is whether this starts down the slippery slope.

You might hate telling people what to do, but the corrupt authoritarian technocratic millionaires who run New Labour thrive on telling people what they can't do, what they must do, what they must pay to do it, where they can do it and where they can't, what they can eat, drink or smoke when doing

What would constitute a child in a drawing? Would one of the figures have to be small? What if the creator said it was a midget? Would it have to say it was a child in a caption? Would it have to have pigtails or some streotypical childish feature? Would they ban people from play acting as kids during sex?

How about realizing that you can't legislate away all the bad things in the world.

You hit on all the points I was going to make. Its easy to get caught in the shock factor of "they're disgusting perverts!" but if you think about the implications of this law its a pretty dangerous precident. Child pornography laws already tread into some pretty iffy areas here in the US. (There are examples of parents being arrested for innocent naked pictures of their babies, although no convictions that I know of)

You already touched on this...but I still feel like expanding. Sure, this might stop a few people from creating some hardcore fake porn featuring kids...but a fake child is hard to quantify isn't it? No one is going to write "kiddie porn" on their works so that leaves it up to the discretion of some fat busy-body somewhere to decide. Its a little easier to make the laws featuring real humans, since its easy enough to seperate them into 18 and not 18.

It is a slipperly slope, because once you stop using their actual age as a factor and instead the appearance of their age all bets are off.

Do you know the robert crumb cartoon "big baby"? It's a character that looks like a huge curvy woman with a baby head sucking on a pacifier who just says "goo" and thinks cocks are big pacifiers, and cum is just like mothers milk. When she appeared on the cover of the "complete crumb" reprints he put a little blurb saying "relax folks, she's 18", for what I guess are obvious reasons. In the stories there's no reason to think she's 18.

outlawing child porn to protect children is reasonable. But outlawing thinking about child porn, whether it be in a drawing or CGI is just though policing, and I'm thoroughly against thought police. In the example of R. Crumb, he was originally thought of as a big pornographer, and had a lot of troubles becuase of the things he decided to draw about. But the things he drew, although they were absolutely certainly without a doubte graphically depicting sexual child abuse in a cartoon form, are gradually being thought of as art rather than horrible seedy pornography. His stuff routinely gets shown in art galleries in the US and across Europe now, and consider pretty sides of the human psyche.

I actually tried to bring this debate up at a party, shortly after the netherlands initiated a debate about outlawing virtual child porn (what happened with that anyway?). Everyone at the party (it was an office party, not really friends. I just wanted to bring up something more interesting than the banal shit they were bandying around) was grossly offended at the idea of virtual child porn, and one particularly stupid individual told me that once I had children I would understand that virtual child porn was wrong.

Well, I'm not young, and I've been around the block a few times, and it's my considered opinion that pretending that certain things don't exist, and censoring their depiction or discussion don't eliminate those things. I don't think they even reduce them. I'm not sure of it, but I think open discussions and the ability to confront such things, and other peoples thoughts, ideas, and fantasies, even when grossly disturbing, actually helps reduce these things. It's the same reason I think it's reprehensible that some school libraries choose to censor mark twain, since his work depicts racism. It's anti racism, but they don't care. They don't like the fact that he shows an ugly side of American history.

Put another way, and I guess I'm ripping this off of Noam Chomsky, freedom of speech is measured by how much freedom one has to say things we don't like to hear (or in this case see). Stalin and Hitler were perfectly content to let people communicate ideas and concepts they approved of, but we don't say they supported free speech.

So yeah, kiddie porn is creepy and disturbing. But if no one was hurt in the production of such kiddie porn, it must not be made illegal. Same goes for depicting violent and nasty or disgusting sex acts. Deal with it, reality contains many creepy and difficult to face concepts. If you don't like them, stick you head as deep in the sand as you must. If you want to shelter your kids from these facts, then stick their heads in the sand too. But don't be surprised if they suffocate, and especially don't be surprised when they find themselves unable to deal with real dangers, threats and disturbing concepts that they might one day have to face.

At what point is it a good idea to attempt to regulate thoughts, feeling and their expression? At what point does it become bad? I find myself asking that question at every turn when I see laws regulating "morality."

Some easy cases for regulation is in the constant sexually oriented marketing and the results it has on children. We like to turn a blind eye to the fact that "adult targetted advertisment" affects the way young developing minds perceive the world. (Yet at the same time, we recognize the fact when we are talking about tobacco and alcohol advertising?)

I don't feel up to making cases against regulation -- I think they don't need to be stated -- I think they are pretty obvious. It's just bad to attempt to control thought.

But perhaps what needs more control is the attempts at controlling thought themselves!!! Better controls on advertising. Better controls on laws on morality. Those kinds of controls might actually have a better chance at addressing the causes of the problems and not just the symptoms. The way I see things, frustrated and confused children growing up to be frustrated and confused adults are the problems and these crimes against children are the symptoms.

There is NO regulating thought. I find such an idea disturbing. Freedom of thought should be a more fundamental right than even freedom of speech.
There is a better alternative. Law. Let them know that when they do do something illegal they will be arrested(and not enjoy the results).
Morality doesn't just disappear when it isn't enforced. Most people eventually gain it.

It's already illegal in Canada. Our criminal code practically outlaws dirty thoughts. Writing in your diary about sex with someone under 18 is enough to get you brought up on child pornography charges. Apparently it is much better if you go out and actually do the deed with a 14 year old (age of consent here).

That's funny... It means Canadians can't produce movies illustrating "lolita" behavior as the film with the same name did. Not that I care for such movies really, unless they'd have a really good script, in which case they'd be our loss. I also have to wonder if Brooke Shields actually suffered any psychological trauma from the recording of that movie? If not, and if it's not common, who are we protecting in this case, really?

We must ask for the facts sometimes, because perhaps it has lost its original meaning in the emotional charge the masses have given to it.

I remember watching the debates on the flag burning amendment. One Representative burnt a napkin with a flag on it at the podium saying that if we ban flag burning, that action would be illegal.

Regardless of the issue of flag burning, he had a point. Even those who are for the amendment don't intend it to go that so far as destroying any image resembling a flag, so perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of patriotism.

I find the same point to be applicable here. Whether stopping child porn will help protect the children or not is irrelevant, those who promote child porn bans by saying it will help, probably don't intend for it to ban all images resembling it, and they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren [slashdot.org].

There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not. This then would become an issue of freedom. If there is no victim, and they keep to themselves, why should anyone else care. If it is because it may in the future hurt a child, again, perhaps they need to take a step back before blindly banning things under the name of thinkofthechildren [slashdot.org].

There is another, at first helpful but then noticeably nefarious, movement here. Some find pedophilia in-and-of-itself to be so loathesome they want to strip all pedophiles of everything, regardless of whether it helps the children or not.

From the owner of www.perverted-justice.com and creator of "To catch a predator" on Dateline NBC.

(and this is a direct quote)

My goal is not to protect minors...It's to go after pedophiles...it's because pedophiles are disgusting people...That's why we go after them.

There are plenty of websites out there that feature "barely legal" young women who are 18 and over. They usually have them dressed in schoolgirl outfits or acting like a "girly high school girl." Would that be considered illegal because it "simulates" an underage girl?

As for cartoons, how the hell does a court determine whether or not the drawn picture is of an underage girl, or a "barely legal" 18 year old? And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children. Who is abused when an artist draws pictures? For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. Where's the victim?

As for cartoons, how the hell does a court determine whether or not the drawn picture is of an underage girl, or a "barely legal" 18 year old?

You zoom in really much on the pixels, and if they have fewer than 18 age rings on them, the pixels are too young.:-p

Seriously, yeah, that judgment would be entirely left up for the law to make, and with as exaggerated erotica the computer generated art I've seen can be, that should be an interesting judgment to watch to say the least.

And why is this such a big deal? I thought the whole point in stopping child porn is because it exploits and abuses the children.

So there are at least two issues here. One is legislating morality. Lots of people in power like to do that. It's not justified.

Second is preventing crime. The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent

The theory is if you take a mentally unstable person and bathe him in child porn, virtual or not, he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

By this logic, 'gangsta' rap music should be illegal in the highest degree.

Take an underprivledged kid, put them on the street and bathhe them in masoginistic, violent, crime ridden lyrics and he's more likely to actually commit a crime acting out what he's been exposed to. So, by removing the stimulus, you prevent the crime.

Now that I've said it that way, does it not reflect on how absurd the argument is?

Is it just me, or does it seem like every time there are real issues that need addressing, but require a lot of effort and a change in government policy, said government comes up with some diversionary issue?

"We need to reevaluate our Iraq policy." "Right, here's a measure we need to fight child pornography!" "We've got an immigration issue." "BTW, did we mention this epidemic of child porn?" "We have to look at healthcare costs" "Look! Kid porn! Child molesters!" It's a quick hot-button issue that allows them to spend immense amounts of time pontificating, while diverting public attention from any lack of work on real issues.

That's not even asking the question of "Why didn't the last 10 laws you passed on this subject work, or why didn't you enforce them?" Which is the question I'm asking of them. Until they have a good answer, I letting them know that I expect them to stop trying to divert me, and get to work on real issues.

IANAL but I thought CG depictions of child sexuality are already illegal in the United States. The relevent code, I think, is Title 18, Chapter 110 [cornell.edu] -- in particular, see Section 2252A [cornell.edu] and Section 2256 [cornell.edu].

From 18 USC 2256:

(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where--(A) the production of such visual dep

graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

"lascivious simulated sexual intercourse"

Seems they closed the legal loophole for creating sites with underage genital-nasal sex and not call it sexually explicit.;)

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the la -- hang on, I posted that yesterday or something.

Are we reaching a situation where vague, ill-defined laws that basically criminalize whatever's unpopular or unprofitable or unlucky are actually being made faster than I can quote Tacitus? In the UK I'd say we are.

Brazil is worse. Last time the number of laws we have was in the 1.5 million range. Good luck we, the Brazilian people, have this custom of just ignoring it all. But more law-abiding countries surely have a huge problem on the horizon.

I'm sorry for UK fans of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi [wikipedia.org]. It's one of the funniest manga teen comedies I've ever read, but due to the protagonist being a 10-year old who is surrounded by partially naked teen girls, it might end up being targeted by such a dumb law. How absurd!

Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child. This in turn makes it easier for themselves to justify or at least in some form allows them to rationalize that what they are doing is ok.
Who knows how many more innocent victims there have been because of the availability of this type of material on the internet. We have all seen "To Catch a Predator" on TV.....this exact type of material is creating an e

Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.

Proof, please?

By the way, I guess I am doomed to become a child molester, since I regularly see and touch naked children every day as a physician? I might as well shoot myself now and save myself the embarrassment of a trial and then having to register as a "sex offender", right? Correlation does not equal causation.

Lets face it, having any type of image, either real or computer generated, de-synthesizes[sic] its viewer to the actual criminal act of molesting a child.

Unless you care to provide a source for this "fact" other than your ass, I'm curious why I should "face it". I could argue the opposite, allowing someone who feels such tendencies to view totally computer generated images could reduce the likelihood that they will engage in such behavior in a manner that actually harms a kid. But the honest truth is, I can

Fine , ban these virtual images of child porn. Presumably all the carved cherubs and statues in fountains of pissing children will have to go too , not to mention numerous works of art. No? Oh and why's that then Mr Reid? Oh , of course , its called double standards, something politicians are past masters at.

They could be created after real images. Or anyway, I personally don't think that no cartoon child porn maker has ever used real images as example for their drawings. Furthermore, it could be argued that this kind of stuff existing could alter the behavior of pedophiles.

Furthermore, it could be argued that this kind of stuff existing could alter the behavior of pedophiles.

Indeed -- argued both ways, no less! It could alter the behavior by making them want to act on their urges with real children more, or it could alter the behavior by satisfying their urges so they no longer feel the need to go after real kids.

Indeed -- argued both ways, no less! It could alter the behavior by making them want to act on their urges with real children more, or it could alter the behavior by satisfying their urges so they no longer feel the need to go after real kids.

This sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking with which most Slashdot readers react to anti-porn news of any kind.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children

Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Pornography certainly did exist during the time of the Founding Fathers (heck, it probably dates back to the first cave paintings). I imagine if they didn't want free speech protections to apply to porn, they could have said so.

This sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking with which most Slashdot readers react to anti-porn news of any kind.

While your wishful thinking is applied to EVERYTHING ELSE. Videogames do not make me go out and kill people. Advertisements do not compel me to go out and buy tampons. Reading Agatha Christie does not force me go out and poison people. Reading Mercedes Lackey is pretty interesting, but the Last-Herald Mage failed to turn me gay.

Wow - you managed to accurately quote the FBI, yet managed to completely distort the quote into supporting your argument. Note that he says "correlation", and nothing about "causation". You are merely implying that the two are identical. Nice try.BTW, I'm quite glad that free speech extends to pornography. For the simple reason that I suspect that your and my ideas of what constitutes pornography are vastly different. I have no desire to foist my definition on you, and I expect the same of you. Now piss off

Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Don't elevate "the intent of the founding fathers" to some kind of pedestal. I'm a little tired of the idea that the intent of the founding fathers defines the intractable limits of our rights. They were men, not gods. They didn't intend freedom of speech, or assembly, or the right to bear arms, or the right to due process to extend to black people, after all. They didn't intend voting rights to extend to females.

MOST CHILD ABUSE is perpetrated by non-pedophiles. These are "situational molestors" to scientists who study this and they are triggered by power and violence. These people are highly unlikely to look at child porn. These people are highly likely to have mental illness.

The rest of child abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles. These are "preferential molestors" to researchers and they are highly likely to be interested in child porn, however, are very unlikely to be seeking the violence/power/domination relationship and often see themselves on the same level as the child, as a peer (of sorts). Within this group, there are actually very low rates of mental illness and according to studies, most in this group are regarded as "highly normal" by psychologists except that they are attacted to children.

Fred Berlin and Johns Hopkins University, probably the world's most prominent researcher on this topic, says that with these people, their attraction is most effectively studied in a similar contest to other, more normative "sexual orientations", and not studied as a mental illness, because it, clinically, has more in common that direction.

The trick is that differentiating these two groups is critical to understanding the issue.

Real images are already illegal. You going to ban something because people **might** have been inspired by something that is illegal?

I guess we'll have to get rid of all the Beatles albums from Sgt. Pepper's and onward, since they **might have been** inspired by illegal drugs.

Or anyway, I personally don't think that no cartoon child porn maker has ever used real images as example for their drawings. Furthermore, it could be argued that this kind of stuff existing could alter the behavior of pedophiles.

Anything can be argued, but studies on pornography have shown that its legalization accompanies a **reduction** in sex crimes.

They could be created after real images. Or anyway, I personally don't think that no cartoon child porn maker has ever used real images as example for their drawings. Furthermore, it could be argued that this kind of stuff existing could alter the behavior of pedophiles.

I personally believe that no FPS has been made without real animals(people) hurt in the process. And playing GTA makes me wanna go out and shoot a cop...

You point out an important distinction, between the public interest in protecting children, and the public interest in promoting virtue.To play the role of devil's advocate for a moment, there are reasons other than paternalism to promote public virtue in this case; these interests may not be unrelated.

Virtual child porn has two effects:

(1) It provides a more acceptable alternative to child porn with real children, removing the economic incentive to produce it.

This was Ashcroft's pathetic argument. I've worked with the application that's used to generate 99.9% of all CGI porn out there (Poser), and its models are instantly recognizable. The lighting and rendering options are prosumer level at best, but more importantly the artists who create Poser porn have NO INTEREST in making their work indistinguishable from photography.This is not a trivial point. CGI porn is created by artists who don't have the skills or talent to draw it themselves, not Hollywood-level te

That/is/ next. See, they will never be able to accurately define which drawn cartoons can be seen as child porn and which can't. That, in turn, will allow them to effectively ban a much wider range of them; in the end, all cartoon pornography is vulnerable.

I don't particularly care for cartoon pornography, especially when it depicts children, but I really wonder if it is the right way to ban it. Does anyone know of studies that prove this kind of stuff to be benevolent or malevolent? I don't ever recall hearing facts being stated when someone argues for this kind of stuff to be banned.

Reminds me of a post once where someone asked why China's Ministry of Truth was so effective at censorship.

By not saying "You're prohibited from discussing topics X, Y, and Z" and instead just hauling people off to prison when they decide the line has been crossed, people censor themselves far more effectively.

Would a computer owner who had previously stored such images on their computer be required to delete them? Or securely delete them (multiple overwrites)? Or scrub their entire hard-drive with Darius Boot and Nuke? Thermite? etc.

One thing's for sure about child porn possession... I've had stories of drives not entirely wiped when resold in case of returns by customers and still with all data not wiped. In case you'd be a second owner of such a, usually a bit more cheaply sold and thus more attractive to some

I'm not into Anime, but from what I've seen of it, the girls in Anime usually:

1. DO look very young2. DON'T look anything like any Asian people I've met, young or adult (and one of my best friends is a Japanese female in her early 20's).

Now, I understand that the girls are generally meant to be adult in the storylines (well, admittedly I'm assuming that since I don't watch Hentai), and I'm not in favor of any sort of censorship in this area, but I don't buy your explanation for why the girls look pre-adult.